Bad news from CA about Battles

[barocca]

............. I do feel that CA should release an open-end, completely moddable game where you can change EVERYTHING!
Personally I´d spend 500$ on that copy, wouldn´t you?

Yes.

A complete battle pack containing all previous releases (or at least since MTW) and all the tools and bits and bobs to edit/mod everything,
that would be worth every penny.

B.

[player1]

Makes me wonder how would you feel about Civ4...

[BrutalDictatorship]

civ4 doesn't look bad, although the battles don't seem to be able to shine RTW's shoes.

AOE3 however might be the next "big one"...been tracking that for a while now

[player1]

But when you look at modability promised with Civ4...

"Dream TW", minus RTS battles

[BrutalDictatorship]

the hybrid rts/turn based style of TW is what makes it my choice...

I just wish that another dev would start using this style...so far i haven't seen anything that blends the two as well as TW games...

although many other straight RTS games have AI that absolutely embarrasses CA.

I'm hoping that at some point, someone will find the right mix...

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya sez... Remember in Olde Shoggy when people would complain of hill and corner campers? STW had supposedly 250 factors going into the combat calculations -- all taken from Sun Tzu... Well, we all remembered how challenging it was to charge uphill in Olde Shoggy.

Well, peeps complained and whined until they were blue. And the result it we have a dumbed-downed version now in RTW. Vanya can now charge uphill into a rock wall with pikemen and still have a decent chance to slap the enemy around some.

Vanya sez... The rule of software is always add, never subtract. But Vanya feels much was subtracted while a lot was also added.

Vanya would like to see (this is wish-list vapor, so if you cannot bear it, turn head now):

1) Ability to "import" mods into game so youz not have to change any files. That way, Vanilla can sit side by side with any number of mods, and picking one is simply a matter of basic menu navigation and selection.

2) A new bundled game with Shogun, Medieval and Rome all available in one. That way youz can send a warrior monk rush to fight elephants and pikes, or have the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom battle praetorian cohorts under the command of a rotund, burping Nero.

3) Tools, either built-in or distributed as "recognized/supported" software by CA. That is, they at least tested it to be sure its compatible if made by 3rd party. Custom tools can be provided "as-is" to. The point is to remove the intimidation factor many players are burdenned with because they have to edit files manually by having distributed, tested products to mod PLUS a game/mod enviroment that is mod-friendly.

Now, regarding #3, Vanya would think the following will also do that justice. Sell game without these tools. BUT, have a "dev" or "enterprise" or whatever edition that comes with them bundled with the game. Say youz pay an extra $15 to get these tools. Well, youz can make use of them as you see fit. Youz can make your own units, maps, scenarios, campaigns, etc. If youz do not buy the dev pack, they youz can still acquire shareware or community apps and do it "the hard way" (assuming these tools would still make you edit files, though that may be a fading stereotype...).

But Vanya digress. Vanya wanted to say that some of what is now in RTW is clearly the result of past criticisms. The dumbing down of combat calculations was probably done to fix such complaints as hill camping. Many units are interchangeable, with only eye-candy differences because warrior monks were the topic of many a crocodile tear by peeps whining about the monk rush. Arrow units kill only 1-2 boneheads a volley because legions died facing the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom and made sure CA knew about it. Now all missile units are impotent (at least more so than the original Olde Shoggy).

And lastly, Vanya sez... The number of sequels that exceed the quality of an original movie are few and far between. What makes Police Academy 10 lame compared to the original is the same underlying current that hurts any other sequel, whether it be in a movie or a game or anything else, for that matter. Part of that is simply subject fatigue. But part is undoubtedly trying to cater to the fans too much too; this can often lead to overreaching when trying to fix something that really just needs to be tweaked when the voices of change scream too loud. Although there are exceptions (Vanya has heard the new Batman, for example is truly superlative and better than any previous Batman movie... But Vanya has not seen it, so this is merely heresay), most of the time, this truth holds the line. Vanya--and all of youz no doubt--hoped RTW would be TW's "Batman". But, alas, it is not. We can all hope and pray the next one shall deliver us from the darkness. But in the meantime, though we may lack a "superlative" game, we still have one that is entertaining in some capacity or another.

But that is just what Vanya thinks. What does Vanya know anyway, since He has no head?



Vanya is confused now... What was Vanya talking about?



GAH!

[sik1977]

Vanya makes a good post...

Vanya also has a head, and seems to be using is just fine...

[Orda Khan]

Why would you take offense, this is exactly how CA is handling RTW. The inability of CA to adapt will prove its undoing.

Then feel free to release your own PC game

For god's sake man. I think it's about time you jumped down off your horse and joined the rest of society! Complaining about this is just, well, RETARDED!
BTW, do you work for CA or any of their affiliates? You and that horse of yours, always seem to be on the CA side of the fence.

Feel free to hurl more abuse if you like but please leave my horse out of it because he is innocent

......Orda

[econ21]

Now all missile units are impotent (at least more so than the original Olde Shoggy).

I haven't noticed that (SP medium battles). When I last played RTW vanilla, my Roman and Cretan archers were mowing down most enemies like machine guns. (They were less impressive against "plate" armoured late legionnaires, that's true.). I'd say they were arguably a little overpowered for the period whereas STW and MTW felt pretty much "just right" for their time frames.

And lastly, Vanya sez... The number of sequels that exceed the quality of an original movie are few and far between.

True of movies, but not of computer games IMO. I suspect almost all of my nominations for "all-time great" classic games are sequels - let's see, we have Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 2, System Shock 2, MTW, Homm3, Might and Magic 6, maybe even Vampires Masquerade is a kind of a sequel. I might even sneak in Panzer General 2 and Star Wars: KOTOR2 to my list, although the originals in both cases were also outstanding. As a generalisation, the first game tends to suck in time developing an engine, at the expense of content. The second game gets rid of some unintended flaws of the original (e.g. the Hojo horde in STW; the NPCs getting stuck in doorways in Fallout etc) and the designers spend a lot of time adding content. I suspect there comes a point when the original essence of a game is lost due to too many sequels, or the engine/idea simply becomes obsolete. But I still think CA has some Total War games left in it.

[Productivity]

Then feel free to release your own PC game

That's a logical fallacy. If I didn't have anything at stake then that would be a fair point to make, but as it is, most of my future enjoyment of Rome:TW is resting upon CA's handling of it, and while retarded wouldn't be the adjective I would use, it certainly isn't particularly invalid.

The moment I paid for Rome, the "release a game yourself and then talk" argument became fallacious.

[sik1977]

Then feel free to release your own PC game

I never get this line of argument. This argument assumes we are all programmers and criticizing CA's work without offering a better alternative. Unfortunately I chose to be a Lawyer and not a programmer. Does that mean that I should not criticize CA's work because I am unable to come up with a program/game which does all that CA's product doesn't.

As an analogy, if i screwed up a case or gave bad advice to a client, and my client (who isn't a lawyer ofcourse) comes to me and tell me that i have screwed up etc., should i tell him to 'feel free to fight/argue his own case and form his own mind'. My client chose to be a businessman and not a lawyer, and came to me for the very reason that he needed legal advice.

We all have a certain profession (mostly) and thus rely on others with different professions for things which are best done by them. I don't grow my own wheat, or build my own Airplane/Train/Bus to travel.

Hope it puts this kind of argument in perspective for those who frequently make use of it (mostly fanboys sorry to say).

[GilJaysmith]

But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?

We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one.

[antisocialmunky]

"Make your own game" isn't really a arguement. It's really just thrown out there to side track people. Just IMHO there.

Now, GilJaysmith has a point. If the client is dissatisified and wants to do it another way, then he should find a lawyer that will do it the client's way.

The problem with that and equating that to RTW is that RTW has no real parallel. It's system is rather unique and people are now begining to clone it. So, there's no alternative for now. But I suspect that companies will make games better suited for your guy's needs if CA falls out of favour.

However...

I design games and its tough to put everything you want in a game, especially if you're working with a comercial deadline and only so much you can do if you want to go back and fix something as complex as RTW unless you scrap the whole thing and restart from scratch because so many things would have to be changed. If they make another TW, I atleast hope they'll learn from RTW and fix much of the hardcoded problems.

[Slaists]

For one, we all like the show or used to like it: otherwise we would not be here :) As far as "going back to cour at your own expense": pardon me, but the last TW game does contain some sloppy work... I am not talking about such things as oversimplified tactical calculations (terrain, weather, fatigue - all seem to have low effect now) or warp killing speed that allows for no tactical manouvering - those are features (arguably placed there so the game could be sold to a wider audience). I am talking about things that are obviously wrong and affect the gameplay experience of most players... The secondary weapon bug, for one... Ok, it got fixed. But what do we have in the "fixed" version? Difficulty levels that are messed up... a top menu level item... Well, these are examples of "screwups" in the "lawyer's work" not examples of when the "case went against the client"... And, yes, I believe, in this case, the "lawyer" should fix the errors at his own expense :)

[sik1977]

But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?

Gil, with all due respect, I said "if i screwed up a case or gave bad advice to a client", that is the starting premise. If it is a point of contention whether i did screw up or not, its a completely different story. I am not saying you guys completely screwed up, simply trying to explain to Orda that throwing such logic as 'do it yourself' at criticism is not the answer. If you must know, negligent advice does expose lawyers to action by clients, not where we lose a case etc., unless there was negligence on our part. We don't have a court or jury sitting here to give us a clear judgement on the point if CA was negligent in releasing RTW in the state it is, or perhaps misrepresented to its customers etc.

We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one

Fair enough mate. It is ofcourse obvious that people who are not happy with RTW have a choice whether or not to support CA's next product. However, most people are simply unhappy about the current state of RTW, and perhaps want something done in the positive by the authorities to improve the state of RTW as is without having to purchase an upgrade. As an analogy (yes one more), perhaps to them its like a Car which came without two of its wheels and they are demanding that the two wheels be provided to them without them having to dish out extra money, as they do not care for the cool spoiler which comes bundled with the upgrade.

Whether they are right or wrong depends on their reasoning and the truth in the matter (i.e., if RTW actually came without the two tires needed for it to give a proper ride). Its easier to say don't buy the expansion if you don't like RTW, but whether it satisfies your customers or not is a for CA to determine from the customer feedback.

As lawyers we can tell our clients to not come back if they don't like our manner of handling their case(s). Sometimes we do that if the Client is being completely unreasonable, but most times it is possible to reach an amicable understanding where both parties can continue to have an amicable relationship.

[Slaists]

I design games and its tough to put everything you want in a game, especially if you're working with a comercial deadline and only so much you can do if you want to go back and fix something as complex as RTW unless you scrap the whole thing and restart from scratch because so many things would have to be changed. If they make another TW, I atleast hope they'll learn from RTW and fix much of the hardcoded problems.

Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...

[KSEG]

Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...

Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.

[Mongoose]

errr...i don't think he said any thing about the ai....

[Slaists]

Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.

m-hmm... i didn't say anything about the AI... I was just referring to the list of now lost (or reduced in significance) tactical features that a player had to consider. as to the AI: no, it was not able to successfully apply these tactical features in most cases neither in STW nor in MTW... however, it was part of the fun: having an inferior army luring the AI to charge uphill or into the woods... yes, these memories make me feel nostalgic... :)

[Puzz3D]

Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...

CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them. CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.

[IceTorque]

Well even the kids don't like tiny featureless battlemaps.
And battles where the load and setup time takes longer,(well almost)
than the actual battle.

I played many an online battle in MTW with my young bloke,
But he won't come near RTW.

[Slaists]

CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them. CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.

this makes my cry out loud... why, oh why??? they had a great product with great ideas that could be developed further. why lose the very features that made the game great? at least, they could have opened those now diminished tactical differentials for modders so the community could adjust such things as terrain advantage and climate effects...

as to the teen rating: i think, it was sufficient to remove blood splashes for a teen rating... there was no need to diminsh the tactical aspect of the game...

[Sid_Quibley]

CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them.

Did they say that in public or private?

[Orda Khan]

It was very nice of you to try to point out something to me sik1977, but you see, this is yet another 'I hate RTW' thread..........YAWN!!!!
How many times are we going to go over this? and I agree with Giljaysmith with regards that nobody commisioned CA to make a product for them and I repeat, to those who hate RTW, don't buy the expansion. There are so many opinions on what the game should be, what it should include etc, etc. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to RTW. People have been moaning since STW but at least back then it was restricted to a few threads. Nowadays it would seem that there is a competition to see who can dream up the most abuse and to be honest, it has become boring to visit this site and find yet another thread of this nature.
( BTW I do not work for CA but if I did I know what I would be thinking right now)
To be honest, reading some posts ( that happen to be made by the same authors) I cannot help thinking there is something of a personal grudge involved or at least, this is how it seems.

When MTW came out I critcised it. I did not 'name call'. I did not like certain things but they were purely superficial things like the bright colours. I did not repeat this ad finitum as some are doing now. By the time VI was due, the 'I will not buy' threads began again but still not to the present level. I helped Beta test the v2.01 patch and was still not happy with the the final game but realised mine was one opinion amongst many.

There are things about RTW that I do not like ( me and my horse ) but I am mature enough to realise that calling CA names is not going to achieve anything other than make me look a fool.

As far as my 'make it yourself' remark is concerned, this was in reply to the 'CA don't deserve support from modders' post. Without CA making the game in the first place, there would be nothing to mod would there? Hence go and do better.

I am happy now, as I was when STW came out, that I am able to fight a realistic battle. I will go and buy the BI expansion because it appeals to me and because I choose to do so. Probably I will find something I do not like.....just like in STW when it first appeared. Only Buddha is perfect

........Orda

[BrutalDictatorship]

I just don't see what is wrong with people repeatedly pointing out the flaws of RTW. What's the problem?

You don't see 100 hate threads on games like Half Life 2 because valve made a game that they knew their fanbase wanted. CA didn't do this...so now they're paying the price via customer conversation and feedback.

I understand the point that "there's millions of threads on this already" but some people just started playing the game last month, last week, yesterday and are pointing out what THEY see as flaws for the very first time.

Interesting how 90% of the players point the same issues out...

[antisocialmunky]

Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...

RTW is a completely brand new engine though, I'm not referring to experience to make a good game, but experience making a brand new all 3D engine. MTW largely carried over from STW. New complicated engines have lots of problems. However, I'm not excusing CA because RTW just has more than most.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.

The past TW games were Teen.

[Revelation]

it has become boring to visit this site and find yet another thread of this nature.

Well Orda, I reckon you could come up with the answer to this one yourself mate, don't you agree? After all, you have the horse, why not use it right!

I do have to agree with the name calling bit though. It's not really doing a hell of alot except pissing the Mods off i'd be thinking. We don't want angry little mods on our hands after all.
Calling CA retarded is probably a little extreme, but on the other hand, the game in it's present state can be quite annoying, especially given the stance of CA in regards to patches and catering to the needs of the user.
I guess folks just remember the bad when they see a statement released by those up top that pretty much says, "screw you all, we're doing it our way regardless of what the masses say"! (well sort of)

I will go and buy the BI expansion because it appeals to me and because I choose to do so.

and you know what, I probably will to, even though i'd like to think I won't! Maybe it will just be in the faint hope that some of the more pressing issues will be addressed.
All in all RTW's a really good game, but could of been a great one and without the mods available out there atm, it's replayability as far as i'm concerned would have been non existant. Sad really.

Only Buddha is perfect

But he's short, bald and fat. No wonder you have only limited problems with RTW Orda! Perfection in your world is easy to achieve it would seem......

[Servius]

Guys, CA and Activision are private companies. They exist to make money. Making games may once have been the end in itself, but honestly I think it's just the means to the end (profit) now. They don't care about a loyal fan base because you can't spend loyalty. Publicly-held companies are extremely focused on the short term, so they see no profitability in loyalty. Right or wrong, they seem to believe that they can make more money dumbing the game down and thereby making it accessible to a broader audience, than continuing in the tradition of STW and MTW.

So long as the sales figures remain high, they have no incentive to change. If you don't like what they've done, don't buy the Xpac. If they see that only a small percentage of RTW owners bought the Xpac (total BI units sold / total RTW units sold) they might take communities like this more seriously. Until that happens, nothing will change. The only thing we can do is show them why it's profitable to listen to us, and profitless to ignore us. It's the only language they (or their publisher) seem to understand anymore.

[Productivity]

But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?

Of course not, however, if the client thinks you are useless, don't expect him to pay you to lodge an appeal.

Secondly if I pay a lawyer, and they come to court impeccably dressed, yet having forgotten entirely what they were doing yesterday, I am probably going to sack them. I would probably also ask for a refund for what they have already done as well.

You may also note that some lawyers now offer a no win, no fee policy.

We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one.

Believe me, I have no plans to go to the next show at the moment. If anyone asks me what I thought of the show, I'll tell them as well. You may think you can get away with alienating your core base, well good luck to you.

The further you move from your core of serious tactical/strategic gamers, the further you are getting into the traditional RTS style games. Do you think you can compete against Age of Empires III, Command & Conquer et al.? If so, feel free to go there, but don't expect me to cry at your funeral.

I could give you 100 case studies of this, over a large range of industries. A company finds a niche, exploits the niche, and then thinks it can take on the big boys in the mainstream. What makes you different from all the failures before you?

Take the Tribes series. Tribes was a classic. It wasn't extensively played, but it had an extremely loyal following. Move forwards to today, the developers tried to take Tribes to the masses. Within months of it being released, it was a complete flop. Now there is no support, and nobody plays it. Tribes had a niche. It was too complex for the average gamer, but it had a strong following. It tried to move into the mainstream by dumbing it down, in the process it alienated it's core following, but it was still too complex for the average player. Now nobody wants it, nobody cares about it. Tribes had a lonely funeral. Do you think Total War can avoid that?

Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.

I disagree. The proof is in the final result. In my thrace campaign, I ended up with final win/loss stats of ~350 wins, 3 losses. In any of my M:TW games, it would have been closer to a 5:1 ratio, at best.

AI differences? I'd say so.